Legal issues

Todd Levine is an attorney who specializes in real estate litigation. He is the founding member of the leading law firm known as Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine PL. Over the past several years, Todd Levine has established himself as one of the top litigation attorneys in South Florida. With this success as a litigation attorney, Todd Levine has built his law firm into one of the best in the nation. Levine credits his success to using his analytical abilities to solve legal disputes for his clients. During his career, he has helped a number of real estate brokers, contractors, property managers, buyers and sellers get favorable outcomes in their legal cases.

Before starting his law firm, Todd Levine was involved in a case that required him to participate in litigation. It was a complex case where Todd needed to gather facts so that he can best represent the client. During the case, Todd Levine was able to successfully get a favorable outcome for his client. As a result, he realized that he had potential to succeed as a litigation attorney in the future. Therefore, he decided to eventually start up his own law firm that specializes in litigation in real estate and in other business matters.

When working during the day, attorney Todd Levine has a number of things that he can be doing at any given time. Most of his day includes meeting with clients, speaking to them on phone calls and also going to court and representing clients at a trial. In order to make his day productive, he looks to make sure that he is always doing an activity that helps him reach his goals.

Since founding his law firm, attorney Todd Levine has looked to focus on providing the best service for his clients. With his client first approach he has been able to earn their praise and get recommendations to others who are in need of his services. Levine believes that if you keep the client’s best interests in mind, you will be able to maximize your potential and succeed as a litigation lawyer.

The best professionals in their respective fields often have a knack for what they do. Not to say that hard work and dedication aren’t a part of succeeding in life; some people are naturally talented. One of the most naturally talented Florida attorneys is attorney Todd Levine.

After a Bachelor’s in Finance in 1988 and a law degree in 1991, he discovered he had a talent for litigation. While working a complex case, quickly figured out a way to reframe issues and arguments so that the judge and jury could better understand his side of the case.

The case ended settling in their favor, and attorney Levine realized how useful his power could be if he continued challenging himself. To this day, he seeks out complex cases to test the limits of his ability. As he gained experience and put more courtroom wins under his belt, clients referred others matters to him.

Today, his schedule is well-managed, but all over the place. As a complex commercial attorney, he doesn’t have “typical” days or weeks. Every day brings with it new challenges and environments that he must adapt to and overcome. One day, he could be in Fort Lauderdale in trial, and the next day, he has a meeting in Miami.

No matter how complicated his schedule appears, he always uses his time wisely, allowing him to stay productive throughout his day. Because he travels so much; he’s learned to take calls and video meetings while traveling.

If attorney Todd Levine isn’t too busy, he’s looking over cases. He starts by taking an in-depth look at the case before boiling everything down to key issues. That’s what he’ll present to the judge, jury, or arbitrator.

Sujit Choudhry is an internationally recognized figure when it comes to comparative constitutional law, having worked as an advisor to constitution building processes, governance, as well as rule of law processes for more than 2 decades in places such as Jordan, Egypt, Ukraine, South Africa, and more. He spoke or gave lectures in 30 countries, sometimes working during ceasefires or conditions of political violence. He has experience in technical advice to multi-party dialogues, leading stakeholder consultations, facilitating public dialogue sessions with stakeholders and civil society groups, drafting technical reports, engaging party leaders and parliamentarians, training civil servants and bureaucrats, and performing detailed advisory work.

Recently, he shared his thoughts in regards to the idea of enhancing the resilience of a constitution in order to ensure that it survives in the face of a populist challenge, setting out his argument in 4 theses. Before outlining his theses, he mentioned Mattias Kumm, who, as he points out, argues that the populist challenge to constitutional democracy is ‘systemic’, due to the fact that its not targeting one of the core features of constitutional democracy, but instead it is aiming at all of them. Sujit Choudhry notes that according to Kumm, populists deny the idea of legitimate opposition as well as the claim that pluralism is politics’ normal condition.

His first thesis begins with a plea for modesty, noting that constitutional democrats have to be realistic and clear-eyed about what good constitutional design can achieve. Mr. Choudhry considers that we have to steer a middle course between constitutional nihilism and constitutional idealism. Idealists argue that good constitutional design can largely eliminate the risk that populism poses, where as constitutional nihilists argue that there is little (if anything) that the constitutional design is capable of doing to secure a victory when facing a populist challenge.

The second thesis that he brings up is the idea that the challenge that populism poses to constitutional democracy is widespread but also misunderstood. He notes that commentators often times are conflating autocrats with populists. He points out that populists are different, due to the fact that they are claiming to represent a true electoral majority, and in some cases they might genuinely command support from the majority, even conditions of competitions are fair and free. The distinction between populists and autocrats, according to Mr. Choudhry, has important implications when it comes to the goals and means of constitutional resilience.

The third point that he raises notes that we should distinguish between two ideas of constitutional resilience. On one side there’s the view which considers the threats to constitutional democracy to be coming from populist political mobilization, with politics being seen in a negative light, and on the other side there’s the view which argues that constitutional stability rests on a political foundation of power relations, and that the constitutions are providing infrastructure for a partisan and pluralist contestation. He considers that turning our back upon politics will undermine constitutional order in the long run in the face of populist challenge.

The forth and final thesis of Sujit Choudhry states that if constitutional resilience has constitutional infrastructure for political competition at its heart, then we should be broadening the institutional viewfinder of constitutional law behind its narrow focus on electoral system design. He brings up the fact that Polish contributors to the workshop have highlighted the weakening of opposing rights when it comes to the legislative process, which has been an important dimension in regards to democratic backsliding. Constitutional designers have imagined the idea of opposing rights in terms of voting rules, but they are also encompassing other tools, such as agenda-setting, oversight powers, committee chairs, etc.

Sujit Choudhry, Constitutional Advisor at International IDEA, has undertaken to study the highly-debated elevation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to United States Supreme Court. This has raised questions about his impact on Roe v. Wade and the legitimacy of serving a subpoenae to a sitting President. As well, he could be the swing vote ending the “Separate Sovereigns Exception” to Double Jeopardy in an evenly split liberal/conservative court and could mean significant consequences for associates of President Trump under criminal investigation.

Double Jeopardy, based on the FIfth Amendment, means someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime. However the exception allows for separate sovereigns, such as state and federal government, to each conduct trials for a crime that violates both state and federal law.

Sujit Choudhry points to the significance of Gamble v. United States, where Gamble, a felon charged for possession, has based a petition on a previous suggestion by Justice Ginsburg, in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, that a reexamination of the Separate Sovereigns Doctrine should be made in the future.

Sujit Choudhry points out, Sanchez, a similar gun-possession case, took place under different circumstances. In contrast, under current political circumstances, such as a call by Senator Orin Hatch to overturn the doctrine, the outcome of Gamble could be different. And whether Hatch’s call was prompted by the investigation of Trump’s associates or not, overturning the Separate Sovereigns Doctrine could allow the President greater power to pardon, which could serve to obstruct the Mueller investigation.

Consequently, Sujit Choudhry believes the outcome of Gamble and whether Justice Kavanaugh’s vote decides will both be subjects of particular importance.